Gun groups say no to Petraeus for Secretary of State

Retired general David Petraeus talks to the media this week at Trump Tower. (Photo: Spencer Platt/Getty Images)

As President-elect Donald Trump continues to build his cabinet, gun groups are coming out hard against his potential Secretary of State pick David Petraeus.

“Having a Secretary of State who openly advocates for more gun control, and who has the ability to reinterpret regulations without Congressional oversight, would be disastrous for gun owners, hobbyist gunsmiths, and manufacturers,” reads a petition posted by the Firearms Policy Coalition on their website.

Petraeus, a retired general and former CIA director, is part of an advisory committee for the Veterans Coalition for Common Sense, a group that works to “urge elected leaders to do more to prevent gun tragedies.” The group was co-founded by retired astronaut Mark Kelly, the husband of former Rep. Gabrielle Giffords.

Trump is mulling three other men for the job, including former Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney, former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani and Tennessee Sen. Bob Corker.

But gun groups are most up in arms over Petraeus. “As Secretary of State, Petraeus would play a key role in deciding whether to remove the U.S. from the UN Arms Trade Treaty,” reads a post from the Gun Owners of America. “This agreement would mandate gun registration, and would authorize comprehensive gun bans — all goals supported by Petraeus’ colleagues Kelly and Giffords.”

The irony of a Petraeus pick is a talking point for gun groups, and anyone watching. Trump slammed Hillary Clinton on the campaign trail for her handling of classified information, something she wasn’t charged for.

But Petraeus was charged for mishandling classified info. He pleaded guilty last year to a misdemeanor charge, admitting that he gave his biographer and lover, Paula Broadwell, sensitive information.

“The system is rigged,” Trump tweeted when the FBI recommended Clinton not be charged. “General Petraeus got in trouble for far less. Very very unfair! As usual, bad judgment.”

And now it’s Trump’s judgment that Second Amendment supporters are questioning, after an election cycle that saw their broad support for him.

“President-Elect Trump and U.S. Senators, DO NOT pick and confirm General Petraeus as Secretary of State,” reads the Firearms Policy Coalition petition. “We need to uphold our Second Amendment rights and the General has proven that he will not do that!”

A previous version of this post incorrectly labeled Gabrielle Giffords as a former U.S. senator. In fact, Giffords served in the United States House of Representatives.

The Secretary of State has no power to “…mandate gun registration, and…authorize comprehensive gun bans…”. Only Congress can make laws regulating guns in domestic situations. This is more black helicopter paranoia.

milesfortis

To a point, you are correct within the making of statutory law, but if (and yes, that’s now even more a eeny-weeny-teeny possibility “if”) the Senate gave their advice and consent to the U.N. Smallarms Treaty, already signed by Obammy, it would give the State Department vast powers to produce more import/export regulation (That ITAR thing).

This is the problem many people misapprehend. It ain’t the laws that’s the problem. It’s the bureaucraps who write regulations – that carry criminal penalties for breaking – that’s the problem.

The executive branch and independent agency bureaucrapic/regulatory stranglehold is what President Trump needs to start dealing with on the afternoon of 20JAN2017.

One part of which is that President Trump needs to immediately denounce that treaty (driving a stake through it’s heart) and The Senate needs to vote against giving it’s consent (cutting off it’s head) to deal a final deathblow to it.

You are right, there is a lot in that treaty that can be misused if in the wrong hands. That said, so far the Senate has not ratified the treaty and I seriously doubt it will do so. Therefore, regardless of what is in the treaty, a SoS is not empowered to enforce it.

Also, US Constitution would trump implementation if the treaty violated the 2A.

milesfortis

You are correct! And we agree that the probability of the Senate giving it’s advice and consent to that treaty is so small as to be classed lower smaller than insignificant.
I knew of ASI’s view on supra-constitution treaties, and agree with it, but I have no confidence that a liberal stacked SCOTUS would do so.
That being the case, who is appointed to vacant seats, in any federal court must always be thoroughly vetted.

Got 3- D printing? Why is that in limbo right now? On what grounds did big daddy gubmint nab it and pull in to seemingly endless legal limbo? Oh yeah, that’s right, as a matter of EXPORTING technology.

State is absolutely meaningful – and powerful- in the right arena.
When one American aims to post something on the internet, say CAD plans, so that other Americans can access them, and it is locked up as a matter of EXPORT, well, Houston, We Have a Problem……and it spans from State to DOj to the FBI to ATF, indeed all across the cabinet and well into both other branches of government as well.

t_reese

His stance on guns isn’t any problem. Sec of State doesn’t have anything to do with laws within our country. The fact that he spoke about sensitive information to his bed buddy is what bothers me and should automatically disqualify him!

milesfortis

SOS Kerry has recently authorized more generic gunsmithing work to be regulated within State Department ITAR regualtions as “manufacturing”, thus requiring FFL gunsmiths to register and pay yearly ITAR fees of from $2250 to $2750.

This needs to be one of President Trump’s “day one” regulatory rollbacks and GEN(R) Petraeus, for his anti-gun/anti-civil rights political views, does not need to have anything to do with in the new administration. Especially as Secretary of State

Bucky Barkingham

IIRC Giffords was a Representative, not a Senator.

milesfortis

You are correct.

Mr Gadget

The real problem is he is a globalist owned puppet. If you recall, 1000ish of Hitlary’s missing emails were between betrayus and hillary. Plus he is a regular Bliderburg attendee, even after he was punished for “something” probably not his known indiscretion, and put in his place by the criminal administration.
My guess is Trump is just milking him for information.

Mike in Illinois

Well, seeing as how Donald Trump wrote openly about Gun Control, it follows that he would choose a Sec State who would do so too. I know many didn’t like to face that during the campaign and dumped garbage on those of us who pointed it out, but those same folks do not get to whine about it now, not when they were warned.

Donald has ALWAYS held the fundamental position that the right to keep and bear arms, heck rights themselves, are just things government is tasked with allowing and disallowing permission slips for. During the 90’s he said there should be no permission allowed for African American rifles, ooops sorry, political correctness bit me there, for for black rifles. Today, he just believes a different set of permissions is to be allowed -by government choice, of course.

I flat guarantee that some folks are going to be literally shocked, and a bit pissed off, at what Trump does regarding guns. A Patraeus or a Romney pick for SOS, heck even Rudy, is the least of the worries to be considered. I know, I know, Trump said he was going to protect the Second Amendment from the assaults we witness, but one assault that Trump sees is the movement toward Constitutional Carry – which is diametrically opposed to his viewpoint of government owning the power of permission. Defending against that assault, from his viewpoint, would be federalizing the permission slip system, including cementing it through the ATF and FBI. NFA is already a system of permission set up, all he need do is augment it and apply it to ALL BEARABLE ARMS and bingo, the permission power in the hands of government is secured.

That right there is the globalists dream, and what the UN has been working toward all along – first obtain absolute power of permission across this entire country, THEN exercise that power, calling it permission denied. Folks cannot say they were not warned.

PStarr

I’m with you. For me, Trump was a “NOT Hillary” vote. Never was crazy about his past record. I see him nominating and appointing people that tell me not much is going to change in DC, especially gun-wise. Bitch McConnell’s wife, a buddy of the ChiComs? Establishment Republican Rance Priebus? Any of the other establishment Repubs he’s considering like Romney, Giuliani, et al? Not confident at all in his picks.

Mike in Illinois

O am OK for the most part so far (it could be worse) and I still have high hopes for State – I urge West or Bolton. What I am seeing though, is something I warned about – which is Trump just filling up the same old positions and reforming the same old tired alphabets. If Trump MEANT what he SAID and WROTE, then he would be gutting some and eliminating others, the alphabets I mean.

It will be so VERY interesting to see what he does with ATF and DEA, along with EPA (Ivanka meeting with GORE ought to finally raise some eyebrows I would hope). And that is why I have been willing to take all the heat that i have through this election cycle. Folks can “claim and flame” all they want to in the run up – but then comes time to PRODUCE and DEFEND what their buddy actually does.

I was crushed when they said Obama won, My worry meter went off the charts. While not pegging now, it isn’t exactly in the normal range either.

While Obama and the Democrats split this country by pitting people against each other by compartmentalizing them into groups and then screaming Diversity (DIFFERENCES), Trump could fracture this nation in a far more serious manner. A LOT of people believe in him and his rhetoric without truly understanding the things he was saying. They are in for a let down that for outpaces the smackdown the closet Obama voters feel now – white guilt squishy middlers especially.

The top two I picked at the start were the top two at the end. Both were paths tot he same thing – kinda. Both meant opening up the 14th judicially, though from different directions. Cruz with his NBC troublesome situation and Trump with his Wall and anchor baby based platform. Both require the democracy of the nine to get off the fence, to actually “decide” without the ability to pUNt.

Personally, I wanted to see it happen, forced, with a Cruz candidacy. There is far too much wiggle room with a Trump win, wiggle room that shake the confidence of this nation that is already teethrattlingly jittery after the last two decades. If Trump does good things, AWESOME, I will sure praise them, but aside from continuing rhetoric, I haven’t seen much yet. Fair enough, nothing can be snapped about too much until the 20th.

Trump played tough guy, and I really do hope he aims to and will BE that guy, and to the right and proper ends. However, There were way to many red flags during the primary AND general elections to just think we are in for smooth sailing from here on out. Indeed, I submit we have some fundamental things to worry about now more than ever – and some of them based on the picks he is making now. While sure not time to freak out at this point, now is not the time to stand idle.

Now is the time to hold Trumps feet to the fire – along with every appointment he makes (One in particular). When it comes to the COurt nomination (and then those that follow) I profoundly disagree that we should be praising the Scalia mold as asking for that caliber of Judges. We ought not settle for that level, which is no Ginsburg debacle for sure) but instead we ought aim higher – for THOMAS level appointments, for SCOTUS and ALSO for lower court appointments.

Trumps main and core “issues” are really 14th amendment “questions” and it is long past time to see them “formally” asked and truthfully answered. Will Trump actually go there? Will he see them asked and put the right people int place to answer them honestly? I am left to wonder and frankly would be surprised if he did- and that is based on his own campaign. That is the main reason I have written about him and rang the warning bells I have all along. This is the time when I have to cross my fingers and wish my gut checks all along have been wrong. Maybe a surprise pick for State will ease the wrenching, but ill just have to wait and see.

John

Well come on, Trump’s first pick was the red Power Ranger until he found out he’s just a phony TV character!

To be clear, it was the ranger who figured it out.

milesfortis

We’ll see!
Personally, I think Trump is toying with the media, like a cat and a mouse. We know he despises them.
I may turn out to be all wet, and I’ll admit it if I’m wrong, but I think neither Petraeus, not Romney will be appointed to any cabinet post.

John

You see, to play cat and mouse you must have the mental faculties to understand the game. I don’t think that’s the case here.

mate556

There is no way that he could have retained his TS clearance or get it back after his conviction. He might have received the a sweet heart deal second only to Clinton, but there is no way what he did could be overlooked by Congress.

Bill Kelly

Rudy Giuliani once said that private citizens should not be allowed to own handguns. He’s never repudiated that statement. He and Mitt Romney always supported the assault weapons ban. Bob Corker started running for office at a time when supporting an assault weapons ban would have disqualified him from a Republican nomination, but he comes across as the kind who would have supported the ban in the 90’s. Corker is also one of the people who set up the rules in the Senate so that the Iran Deal didn’t need real confirmation. As governor of Massachusetts, Mitt Romney did ease some requirements for gun owners in Massachusetts. From a Second Amendment perspective, I’d like to see Mitt Romney or John Bolton in the Secretary of State’s office.